Might as well start this now, looks like things are starting to move. Rick Perry is set to announce his intent to run under GOP. Not sure what to think of him. He used to be a Democrat and supported Al Gore in 1988. He also seems to be very socially conservative, which I think will polarize a lot of moderate Democrats. But based on the limited things I have read, he would immediately be the front runner, and he has been a big part of balancing Texas's budget.

Might as well start this now, looks like things are starting to move. Rick Perry is set to announce his intent to run under GOP. Not sure what to think of him. He used to be a Democrat and supported Al Gore in 1988. He also seems to be very socially conservative, which I think will polarize a lot of moderate Democrats. But based on the limited things I have read, he would immediately be the front runner, and he has been a big part of balancing Texas's budget.

He would be the most fundamentally religious/socially conservative candidate in the GOP field by far and that's saying something. His entrance into the race is terrible news for Michelle Bachmann. It's hard to imagine another former governor of Texas becoming President so soon but he would be probably will be the new favorite to win the GOP primary.

His management of the budget is a reason not to vote for him. Texas traditionally has some of the worst budget problems in the country due to a refusal to accept reality on taxes. It seems unlikely that they actually balanced the budget for next year. Also, Texas' has an extremely regressive tax structure. If you think this country has gone in the wrong direction in the last 30 years then Perry is the last candidate you should vote for. http://www.economist.com/node/18744627

"I am a series of electronic pulses in a vast array of networked silicon lifeforms."

His management of the budget is a reason not to vote for him. Texas traditionally has some of the worst budget problems in the country due to a refusal to accept reality on taxes. It seems unlikely that they actually balanced the budget for next year. Also, Texas' has an extremely regressive tax structure. If you think this country has gone in the wrong direction in the last 30 years then Perry is the last candidate you should vote for. http://www.economist.com/node/18744627

Hmmm. I may stop researching Perry. You may have just locked up my vote for him.

Heard on the radio today that our new governor has passed a deal where ALL the electoral college votes in California will now go to which ever candidate has the most popular votes across the nation.Yea, no reason to make California matter at all. Candidates can now skip California, they only get those 55 electoral college votes if they get the popular vote.This is an attempt to change the constitution without changing the constitution in the manner the constitution allowed.Gotta love democrats willing to ignore the constitution when it gets in the way of their plans.

I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” ― George Orwell

I think he was laughing at you for characterizing Texas as having one of the worst budget problems in the country...cause you are are forgetting all the states run by democrats which have way worse budget problems. Plus of course the fact that Democrats ran Texas until Bush came and fixed the place.In other words..Don't mess with facts Texas

I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” ― George Orwell

Can't the guy who votes in the "electoral college" just, in the end, vote for whoever he wants regardless of what the people say?

I don't think so. They are required to follow the rules that their state gives them. Some states require all votes to go to whichever candidate wins the state, some states split the votes based on the voting precinct results.I don't think I've ever heard of an electoral college vote going contrary to their prescribed policy.

I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” ― George Orwell

Also, lets not forget his blatant hypocrisy. On the one hand, he constantly bashes the federal government and has spoken in favor of secession. Then, he complains about not getting enough federal aid and lies when he says Texas did not receive any. http://politicaltick...-for-wildfires/I can see why you guys think Perry is so great. The GOP couldn't pick a candidate that better represents its values if it tried.

"I am a series of electronic pulses in a vast array of networked silicon lifeforms."

So your state's tax dollars are going to the federal government and you want your fair share coming back...means you can't think the federal government sucks?Seems to me this is exactly the right way to act unless you are a liberal and unable to understand basic logic.

I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” ― George Orwell

So your state's tax dollars are going to the federal government and you want your fair share coming back...means you can't think the federal government sucks?Seems to me this is exactly the right way to act unless you are a liberal and unable to understand basic logic.

Have you ever done a fact check in your life? http://www.businessi...12-2011-11?op=1The projections for Texas were completely wrong. They turned out to be 27 billion, which would put them #1 on that list.

I thought the budget gap was projected at $27b, but was mostly closed through a reduction in spending. I don't know if that's true, but I'm just going on what one of your links said.

So your state's tax dollars are going to the federal government and you want your fair share coming back...means you can't think the federal government sucks?Seems to me this is exactly the right way to act unless you are a liberal and unable to understand basic logic.

Texas actually pays their fair share, but most red states do not. Conservative states on average take far more than their fair share of federal spending. http://www.taxfounda...show/22659.htmlThis blatant hypocrisy and stealing is exactly what I would expect from Neocons.

"I am a series of electronic pulses in a vast array of networked silicon lifeforms."

Texas actually pays their fair share, but most red states do not. Conservative states on average take far more than their fair share of federal spending. http://www.taxfounda...show/22659.htmlThis blatant hypocrisy and stealing is exactly what I would expect from Neocons.

So you are retracting your previous opinion of Texas and trying to gloss over being caught by deflecting on another nebulous 'bad guy state' that you think justifies your wrong opinion about Texas?Seems some one has a problem with debating issues with honesty.So let's recap while its still fresh.SS; Texas sucks and I hate them for being XBG: Actually they are being X from a logical positionSS: Yea...well...WYOMING IS POOR!Everyone: :eyeroll:

I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” ― George Orwell

P.S.The top two most unfair states...run by democrats during this 'poll'And the worst example: DC with a 2.5 Xs worse than NM...run by Democrats almost exclusively for everThen the third on the list is AlaskaThen the next 2 are again democrats.So of the top 5 ( not counting DC ) 4 of them are democrat controlled statesNow to follow your MO, you need to deflect from the source of info and tell us how you were right, even while being wrong.

I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” ― George Orwell

Heard on the radio today that our new governor has passed a deal where ALL the electoral college votes in California will now go to which ever candidate has the most popular votes across the nation.Yea, no reason to make California matter at all. Candidates can now skip California, they only get those 55 electoral college votes if they get the popular vote.This is an attempt to change the constitution without changing the constitution in the manner the constitution allowed.Gotta love democrats willing to ignore the constitution when it gets in the way of their plans.

Wow. This...does seem to be contrary to the constitution.

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, August 9th, 2011, 5:49 PM, said:

I don't think so. They are required to follow the rules that their state gives them. Some states require all votes to go to whichever candidate wins the state, some states split the votes based on the voting precinct results.I don't think I've ever heard of an electoral college vote going contrary to their prescribed policy.

If someone had told me that some states do it one way and some do it another, I would have told them they must be confused, because no voting system could ever be so ridiculous as to not have this consistent one way or the other.I believe everything that BG says, so I'm not even going to look that up.Really though? The votes in states are divided differently? That seems absolutely insane.

Wow. This...does seem to be contrary to the constitution.If someone had told me that some states do it one way and some do it another, I would have told them they must be confused, because no voting system could ever be so ridiculous as to not have this consistent one way or the other.I believe everything that BG says, so I'm not even going to look that up.Really though? The votes in states are divided differently? That seems absolutely insane.

Each state's legislature determines how its electors are to be chosen.[34] Currently, all states choose electors by popular election on the date specified by federal law. Forty eight states, and Washington, D.C., employ the winner-takes-all method, each awarding its electors as a single bloc.[citation needed] Two states, Maine and Nebraska, select one elector within each congressional district by popular vote, and additionally select the remaining two electors by the aggregate, statewide popular vote.[citation needed] This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1992

I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” ― George Orwell

I don't think I've ever heard of an electoral college vote going contrary to their prescribed policy.

Quote

Theodora Nathalia "Tonie" Nathan (born 9 February 1923) is the first woman to have received an electoral vote in a United States presidential election. She was the 1972 Libertarian candidate (on the ticket with John Hospers) for vice president when Roger MacBride, a Republican elector from Virginia, cast the historic vote.Nathan was still a radio and television producer in Eugene when she attended the first presidential nominating convention of the Libertarian Party in 1972. She was nominated by the delegates in attendance to run for vice president with presidential candidate John Hospers, chairman of the philosophy department at the University of Southern California. The ticket received only 3,671 official votes; however, Republican elector Roger L. MacBride of Virginia chose to vote for Hospers and Nathan instead of Nixon and Agnew.

I don't think it happens very often, but once in a while a delegate goes rogue. Yes, that's right, the first woman to receive an electoral vote was the vice presidential candidate for the Libertarian party.

"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton